House Speaker Frank McNulty said today it's possible a civil-unions bill could be DOA in the House even though there are enough votes to pass it.The Highlands Ranch Republican said leadership is under no obligation to bring the bill up for a debate after it gets out of the House Appropriations Committee, which will have the hearing today or tomorrow.The bill must have what is cal...

OK so McNulty admits that a majority of the legislature supports this bill, and polls indicate the majority of voters support it but he might kill it just because he is the boss and wants to do it? This kind of garbage, pulled by both sides, is why public respect for lawmakers continues to plummet. The interesting thing is that despite some public blow ups, this legislature has actually compromised on some issues this session and actually accomplished things. It is only on the big public stuff that McNulty gets his back up and talks like a jerk. My guess is that he will back down, having made his show for the right wing. However, if you want to let him know what you think of these kinds of tactics his number is (303) 683-8873.

Last edited by buffsblg on May 7th, 2012, 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

McNulty was elected to represent the voters of his district. But in his position as Speaker he is supposed to work for the people of Colorado! Rather he choices to let his beliefs decide the issue. He is a worthless chicken not to let issue be decided on an up or down vote. It is sad as polls show 60% plus support civil unions. This quoter describes him, actually all politicians:

“I think Congressmen should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we could identify their corporate sponsors.” – Unknown

“at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Supreme Court Justice Kennedy

"I think Congressmen should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we could identify their corporate sponsors." source Unknown

This describes well McNulty. He speaks for his money supporters NOT the interests of the citizens of Colorado. Lets see an up or down vote McNulty! Oh I forgot Republicans and deny anything, the party of NO.

“at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Supreme Court Justice Kennedy

"even though there are enough votes to pass it". How does Lynn Bartels know there are enough votes to pass the civil union bill before the vote is taken? Is the fix in, or is she a psychic? Republicans are playing with fire if they approve this bill. For one thing, Colorado voters made their feelings crystal clear in 2006 by amending their Constitution to make same sex marriage illegal, and they will NOT appreciate the Republicans trying to nullify that amendment through legislation. This civil union bill is just another back-door attempt by the gay community to do what they could not do at the ballot box, but this law will not override the Colorado Constitution. It will guarantee years of expensive litigation over the issue, however. Secondly, this bill, which may benefit at most 10% of Colorado's population, is a political loser for Republicans, whose conservative constitutents will move immediately to repeal the law by ballot initiative, and then target those dumb enough to vote for it in the next primary.

Silverspruce wrote: This civil union bill is just another back-door attempt by the gay community to do what they could not do at the ballot box...

LOL...passing a law in the legislature is "back door"?

This sort of desperate, twisted logic is what happens when you're on the wrong side of an issue, and know it. Time is running out on your ability to codify anti-gay bigotry into law...and you know it, don't you? Pretty soon, you'll have to be a bigot without the law behind you. STBU.

How about let the voters vote? The Speakers is merely standing up for the majority of Coloradans who said no to civil unions in '06. If liberals want to redefine marriage in Colorado, then they need to go back to the ballot to do so. Sneaking it through the legislature--perhaps because supporters know it won't pass a vote of the people--isn't the right way to do this.

Silverspruce wrote:"even though there are enough votes to pass it". How does Lynn Bartels know there are enough votes to pass the civil union bill before the vote is taken? Is the fix in, or is she a psychic? ...

The House is comprised of 33 Republicans and 32 Democrats. The presumption is that all 32 Democrats will support the bill and at least two Republicans who have already supported it (Reps. Nikkel & Beezley) will join them. Thus the statement "there are enough votes to pass it" seems only mildly speculative and certainly doesn't require psychic powers.

How about let the voters vote? The Speakers is merely standing up for the majority of Coloradans who said no to civil unions in '06. If liberals want to redefine marriage in Colorado, then they need to go back to the ballot to do so. Sneaking it through the legislature--perhaps because supporters know it won't pass a vote of the people--isn't the right way to do this.

I do believe I've found the rightwingnuts' talking point on this - that passing this bill is "sneaking it through the legislature." Forget that one part of the legislature is Republican-controlled - this is just so sneaky!

Read your own statement again and it'll become clear how incredibly stupid this argument is.

Last edited by Boss302 on May 7th, 2012, 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

The bill was introduced January 11 - which I think was the day the legislature convened. The first Senate Committee forwarded the bill on February 15 and the second Senate Committee on February 16. It passed its last Senate Committee on April 17. The full Senate passed it on April 26.

The bill was then introduced in the House on May 1. It will (presumably) pass its third House Committee tomorrow - one week to do what the Senate took over three months to do.

So why is it that the Senate insists this thing is so important it MUST be voted on NOW? Maybe they should have sent it to the House a bit sooner.

Unless . . . maybe these Senators don't really care about creating a civil union law. Maybe they only care about throwing a political football around so they can use it against the GOP when they fumble it.

Our constitution was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny or the majority. What do citizens do now when the minority is practicing the tyranny.

Arguing with a conservative is like playing chess with a pigeon. You get angry. The pigeon embarrasses itself by cra*ping on the board, knocks over the pieces, then flies off to tell its friends how it won the game.

How about let the voters vote? The Speakers is merely standing up for the majority of Coloradans who said no to civil unions in '06. If liberals want to redefine marriage in Colorado, then they need to go back to the ballot to do so. Sneaking it through the legislature--perhaps because supporters know it won't pass a vote of the people--isn't the right way to do this.

Well first of all this is hardly "sneaking" through. It was prominent in the Governors state of the state speech, it was big news in the Senate and has been the subject of about 25 stories in this paper in the last few weeks. This is what is called an open and honest legislative debate. It is why we have a legislature, to address laws for the people. The referendum process, in my mind, should be a last resort. It fascinates me that you simply reject the very idea of representative democracy that is the underlying premise of our Government literally since 1776. You might note that the colonies did not put the Declaration of Independence up for a referendum.

I personally think that the voters would pass a civil unions bill. But here is an idea, if you hate the law so much, you can try to overrule it with a referendum. Then you get the chance to show you are the majority.

Last edited by buffsblg on May 7th, 2012, 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell